Andy at Wimbledon 2012

Huh? Heres the points won list since the start of the year. Fed isn't far behind Joker and he's well ahead of 4th place Ferrer. He also has nearly twice as many points as Andy. So your argument on the demise of Fed has no merit. Just wishful thinking on your part.

Can you still not get what I am saying?If Murray hadn't been injured at the end of last year and all the rest,& assumed No 3 as he probably would have.I still would not consider him part of a big 3.And i certainly don't consider Ferrer a big 4 player also based on present points, thats absurd.Federer has become a male Caroline Wozniaki, accumulating big points on small tournaments only for his big position.So far Roger has benefitted from a bad blue clay court and unfit major opponents for the last 12 months nearly, he will have to hope for the same recipe or watch the points fall off over the next 8 months.And nobody is that fortunate, even with all the fixed shenanigans federer still enjoys.

Huh? Heres the points won list since the start of the year. Fed isn't far behind Joker and he's well ahead of 4th place Ferrer. He also has nearly twice as many points as Andy. So your argument on the demise of Fed has no merit. Just wishful thinking on your part.

Those ranking points are misleading. Because when it comes to major tournaments, Federer is with the rest of the bunch with the least chances of winning any of them. The only two legitimate winners (or the big 2) are Nole and Nadal. Think of Wozniacki for a change. She accumulated all the points in the world by winning all the mickymouse and leftover tournaments and remained at number 1 for a considerable amount of time and that ever winning a Grand Slam. So when it comes to GSs, would you say that she too is a firm contender based on her ranking points? As I’ve said before, while numbers don’t lie, they also don’t tell you the whole truth or the actual truth.

Those ranking points are misleading. Because when it comes to major tournaments, Federer is with the rest of the bunch with the least chances of winning any of them. The only two legitimate winners (or the big 2) are Nole and Nadal. Think of Wozniacki for a change. She accumulated all the points in the world by winning all the mickymouse and leftover tournaments and remained at number 1 for a considerable amount of time and that ever winning a Grand Slam. So when it comes to GSs, would you say that she too is a firm contender based on her ranking points? As I’ve said before, while numbers don’t lie, they also don’t tell you the whole truth or the actual truth.

Federer's GS points were slightly behind Andy's last year so on that basis we have to say that Andy is one of the big 3 for slam contention.Unfortunately he is not yet but unlike Federer there is the potential to grow and make a breakthrough.With federer there is only diminishing returns and decline.He really is the weakest wing of fedal now.

Federer's GS points were slightly behind Andy's last year so on that basis we have to say that Andy is one of the big 3 for slam contention.Unfortunately he is not yet but unlike Federer there is the potential to grow and make a breakthrough.With federer there is only diminishing returns and decline.He really is the weakest wing of fedal now.

Of course they are called the big 4 because of their constant semi and final appearance the past few years, but that doesn’t mean they all have the same shot at winning a Slam. It varies from Slam to Slam. Given that Federer is actually on his way down (least potential to win more than 1 Slam) and Andy (most potential to win a few) is on his way up or at least steady at this point, it's more accurate to say that Andy is more promising candidate than Federer to be a part of the big 3. I really think that the next two Majors will reveal far more as everyone's has a fair shot at them unlike RG where Nadal still reigns supreme.

The only reason why Ak wants a Federer/Andy final is because that's the only way our dearest Roger can guarantee a Slam these days. The other two practically own him in GS. If Andy were in the same bunch as Nole and Rafa, he would have never wanted a final between Andy/Federer but because that isn’t the situation now, not only he wants it but also, makes it sound so noble too. Oh Ak, you sometimes kill me! lol

The only reason why Ak wants a Federer/Andy final is because that's the only way our dearest Roger can guarantee a Slam these days. The other two practically own him in GS. If Andy were in the same bunch as Nole and Rafa, he would have never wanted a final between Andy/Federer but because that isn’t the situation now, not only he wants it but also, makes it sound so noble too. Oh Ak, you sometimes kill me! lol

Of course he'd have to get to Andy to be in a final with him, & right through Novak in the process

Emma that actually was not what I meant :-) I meant it as in I can't say I want Murray to win the title as a Roger fan so I would like a Roger v Murray final and yes thee is no guarantee Roger will make it and should he lose early I'd be more than happy if Murray was to win the title! :-)

Big respect for both of those guys and if they win fair play! But they have won the last 9 majors between them so would want Murray to win it as he deserves a major! Would love to see Roddick make a run too was gutted for him in 2009 he didn't deserve to lose!

Yes but Roger has won like a thousands of them so if what you say is true then you, as a tennis fan, which clearly comes first to you by your own admission, should be wanting Andy and only Andy to win the next few Slams. Roddick already won a Slam and the only reason he deserved it is because of his pure consistency over the years (similar reasons why I’d give a Slam to Ferrer as well. And while we are at it, we should give a Slam to each of Berdych and Soderling as well. Whether we like them or not is irrelevant at this point because it’s not a matter of that but a matter of who deserves it). So Roger, as I see it, should be at the end of the line. Is that agreeable to you?

Roddick already won a Slam and the only reason he deserved it is because of his pure consistency over the years (similar reasons why I’d give a Slam to Ferrer as well. And while we are at it, we should give a Slam to each of Berdych and Soderling as well. Whether we like them or not is irrelevant at this point because it’s not a matter of that but a matter of who deserves it).

Jeez. How do Berdych and Ferrer deserve a Slam? They have one Grand Slam final appearance between the pair of them. How many Masters have they won? Berdych I think has one and Ferrer probably has one(!?) They aren't even close to winning a Slam. And no they don't deserve to win one because they are consistently in the worlds top 8. Absolute nonsense Emma.